9.  The applicant was born in 1970 and was serving his prison sentence at Adıyaman prison at the time of the lodging of the application.
10.  On 19 March 1993 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody. On 30 March 1993 he was brought before the Siverek Magistrates’ Court. The latter ordered his remand in custody.
11.  On 21 May 1993 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment accusing the applicant of hiding members of the PKK and guns and explosives as well as organising meetings in his house. He requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713.
12.  On an unspecified date, the criminal proceedings against the applicant and 60 co-accused commenced before the 3rd Section of the Diyarbakır State Security Court.
13.  On 29 December 1993 the 1st Section of the Diyarbakır State Security Court decided to join the criminal proceedings of 44 other accused to that of the applicant.
14.  Between 29 December 1993 and 28 December 1994 the first‑instance court held hearings at regular intervals.
15.  On 28 December 1994 the public prosecutor submitted his observations on the merits of the case. The accused were given time to prepare their defence submissions on the merits.
16.  Between 28 December 1994 and 30 October 1996 the first‑instance court held hearings at regular intervals. During this time, at each hearing until 13 December 1996, several of the co-accused requested the court to apply in their favour Law no. 341 concerning the provisions to be applied to offenders accused of certain categories of crimes, as amended by Law no. 4085. Under this law, an accused who confesses his guilt and who assists the security forces in identifying other offenders can be given a lesser sentence. As a result, during this period, the court undertook various procedural decisions with a view to obtaining the additional defence submissions of those co-accused who wanted to benefit from Law no. 341 by way of rogatory letters and also requested information from the Ministry of Interior as to whether these co-accused could be deemed to benefit from the application of this law.
17.  In the hearing held on 5 August 1996, the applicant’s representative requested the court to rule on the merits of the case as soon as possible. He pointed out that the public prosecutor had already submitted his observations on the merits on 28 December 1994.
18.  In a hearing held on 25 September 1996 the court requested the public prosecutor to submit his observations on the merits as regards the co‑accused who had requested to benefit from Law no. 341.
19.  On 30 October 1996 the public prosecutor submitted his additional observations on the merits of the case in so far as it concerned those co‑accused who had requested to benefit from Law no. 341. In respect of the other co-accused, including the applicant, the public prosecutor referred to his initial observations of 28 December 1994.
20.  In the next two hearings held on 28 November 1996 and 30 January 1997 the court heard the defence submissions of some of the co-accused.
21.  At the end of each hearing, the court considered and refused the release of the applicant pending trial, either ex officio or at applicant’s request.
22.  On 27 March 1997 the Diyarbakır Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment. He was also barred from public service for life. In its decision the court held, inter alia, that despite the fact that the applicant submitted that he had aided the organisation out of fear, it was established that the applicant had entered into a permanent hierarchical and organic relationship with the organisation. In this regard, the court referred to the statements taken from other co-accused as well as other evidence, namely the guns and other materials found. It further noted that the applicant had shouted “Biji Serok Apo, Biji PKK and Biji ERNK[1]” together with other co‑accused while the judgment was read out in court.
23.  On 17 June 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first instance court in respect of the applicant.